The death of a baby

Today I would like to comment on a case in which the baby died after induction of labour in a tertiary level obstetric hospital. 

It's a well staffed, well equipped modern facility, with all the bells and whistles.   It's a hospital where doctors and midwives and nurses are  being taught their professions, where evidence based practice is treated seriously.

This death was reported to the Victorian Coroner, who carried out an inquest and has recently published her findings.  The baby's name is Kylie.  I would like to refer to her by her name, as she is at the centre of the picture.  Other people will be referred to by their role.

I am writing about this sad case because it has a number of features are important in understanding an unexpected adverse event.  Please note that I don't have any inside knowledge.  I don't know any of the midwives or doctors who cared for Kylie or her mother, and I don't know anyone who knows Kylie's parents or family.  My source is the Coroner's report which has been placed on the public record. 


A layperson reading the report may well ask how was this allowed to happen?  Why was no action taken until (obviously, with the benefit of hindsight) too late, to hasten the birth of baby Kylie?  What's the point of having continuous CTG monitoring if the plan is to press on, even when the most basic understanding of cardio tocography indicates that baby Kylie was distressed? 

That's the big question. 

Although birth is not an illness, the process carries potential for damage and death.  In birth there is a finite point after which the baby will not do well, but it's impossible to predict where that point is.  Midwives have to accept and embrace this uncertainty, as we work in harmony with natural physiological processes which usually lead to spontaneous birth.  The decisions we make in the clinical setting take unpredictable and sometimes quick changes into account.


The language used to describe a CTG trace, such as 'non-reassuring', is, I think, deliberately vague.  We are all confident when we see a CTG trace that ticks all the boxes.  'Reassuring'!   It's the non-reassuring ones, placed in context with all the other clinical features, that challenge decision-making.  A normal trace now can not predict the condition of the baby in 2 hours' time, or 10 minutes, or any time in the future.


I found the record of the evidence of the obstetric experts very interesting (#70 onwards). Some hospitals/obstetricians have a low tolerance for non-reassuring traces.  Historically the CTG machine has become the catalyst for high rates of caesarean births, and many babies come out pink and complaining about the whole process, suggesting that the surgery was not really necessary.  The ability of the midwives and doctors who are providing professional care to know which mother-baby pair is progressing well, and who needs surgical intervention is a skill that cannot be overvalued.  The big teaching hospitals such as this one set up their guidelines that the staff are bound to follow with this in mind.
 
The idea of a chronically compromised fetus who may not have done well even if the baby had been delivered earlier is worth thinking about.  


Will this death, and the related report, lead to an even greater rate of elective surgery to avoid the possibility of low fetal reserves?  How many mothers will be operated on without valid reason, giving them and their children the increased life-long consequences of caesarean surgery?  More importantly, will the lives of babies like little Kylie be protected as they make their transition from mother's womb to our world? 



My response to this report is from a midwife perspective. For 20 or so years until my retirement last year I have been attending homebirths, without access to CTG at the primary care level. A midwife attending homebirth will usually listen to the fetal heart sounds using a doppler sonicaid machine after a contraction, and consider that observation within the context of other clinical features. If there are 'non-reassuring' features of that auscultation, such as a deceleration, it's a decision point that can have profound consequences.

Natural: is it good, bad, neither, or both?

It has been months since I put (virtual) pen to (also virtual) paper in this blog.

I have needed time to reset my body clock; to recover from the exhaustion and burnout after many years of midwifery and related professional activism.  I don't know if I have fully recovered yet.  The reality of ageing gives much to ponder; a relentless march towards exhaustion.

In recent months, with no midwifery to absorb time and energy, I have taken up some new challenges.  These photos show the performance of the 'Human Knitting Machine' at the Kyneton Show.

performance of the 'Human Knitting Machine'

The finished product

I am enjoying our new home, and the rural Central Victorian lifestyle.  The daily patterns of weather; the sun and clouds and wind; the subtle changes in the seasons; the growth and change in the garden - these natural life factors add wonder as well as sometimes concern to our days.

We are often delighted, and sometimes concerned, by the little members of our family and friendship circle, as they proceed through their developmental milestones.  This is all part of natural processes: sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes neither, and sometimes both.



Just as with retirement from attending births my life has changed, so has my capacity for writing.  Blogging has, for me, been closely linked with practice.  In the past, as I pondered the events of my professional life, the thoughts that surfaced became seeds for comment in this blog.

I now find that I need to shift my point of view from that of a midwife who was intimately involved in the day by day decisions related to maternity care and the lives of mothers and babies, to a more distant view.  As a retired midwife, my view is that of guardianship of birthing within the bigger picture of living.  I care deeply about what my society does to mothers and babies.  My right to comment continues as in the past.  Readers will need to decide whether my thoughts are valid and useful, or not.


Today I would like to consider *natural* in the maternity context.  Previously I wrote:

Giving birth spontaneously is, in my mind, a woman's *natural right* (not a legal right), just as we have a natural right to breathe, or walk, or perform any other natural function of our bodies.  Women do have a natural right to birth their babies.  Midwives are in the unique position to protect and work with that natural process, giving the mother confidence as she navigates the most challenging terrain.  The only way we can achieve our natural right to birth is if we stay on that natural pathway, and for the majority of women, this is a wonderful and rewarding phenomenon, working with the amazing hormonal cocktail that sets up powerful maternal instincts and bonding/attachment for mother and baby. 

I know of no better way for birth than to proceed under the spontaneous, hormonally mediated natural process from conception to birth, and beyond to nurture and mothering of the infant - MOST of the time.

Natural pregnancy, birth, and nurture of our children is good - MOST of the time.  Regardless of race, wealth, or other social factors, our bodies and minds are set to the 'default' that whatever is natural will be, unless something is done to redirect the course of events.

Whether we apply this principle to maternity issues, or any other ordinary life event, *natural* can be awfully unpredictable, and unmanageable.  There is no therapy that can make it work better, or reign in the unpredictability.  There is no drug that will 'fix it'.  Modern Western medical management of maternity care seeks to minimise 'risk', and in so doing reduce the impact of the spontaneous natural process: to remove the 'MOST' element, and make maternity just another predictable, manageable medical event that complies with medical guidelines and protocols.


For the midwife who is committed to working in harmony with natural processes, except when there is a valid reason to interfere, the big challenge is to know when the natural process is likely to result in harm; when medical and other interventions are likely to lead to improved outcomes.  This requires clear thinking by the midwife or other primary care professional, and independent clear thinking by the woman who receives the advice that a process other than the natural one is being recommended.

I want to emphasize the need for independent thinking by the woman.  The first decision to interrupt the natural birthing process is profound, and the woman must take responsibility for it as her own decision.  It doesn't matter how much trust there is between the woman and her midwife, or doctor for that matter.  The first intervention, which can quickly cascade into a whole bunch of subsequent interventions, can be a life and death decision point.  As can the decision not to intervene!

I started this post by saying that

I know of no better way for birth than to proceed under the spontaneous, hormonally mediated natural process from conception to birth, and beyond to nurture and mothering of the infant - MOST of the time.

During the past couple of decades I have experienced progressive increases in reliance on medical intervention in maternity decisions, paralleled by loss by women in their ownership of their commitment to natural, spontaneous, unmedicated birth.  In Australia today, the woman's ability to make her own consumer choices has eclipsed any valuing of or protecting physiology.  This has made maternity decisions more like walking down the aisle in the supermarket and making selections based on price, packaging, or some other possibly insignificant factor.

I'm not wanting to suggest that I think maternity care was better 20 years ago, when I was busy with midwifery and maternity activism; or 40 years ago, when I was having my own babies; or even 60 years ago, when as a young child I learnt much about mothering from my own mother.

Twenty years ago we were working to demand that midwives be called midwives, not nurses, in hospitals.  We had supported the release of a Code of Practice for Midwives in Victoria.  We were promoting the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, through which maternity hospitals were supported in the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding as the health promoting natural resource of mothers and their new babies.

As time has passed the indicator of reliance on medical rather than natural processes has been the consistently increasing rate of caesarean births in otherwise healthy pregnancies. 

Women don't, on the whole, choose caesarean surgery.  They enter systems of care that sets up the cascade of interventions, so that there is no safe alternative but to bring it all to a conclusion, and when that happens the most rational and helpful option is surgery.  Women, midwives and doctors play games that set up a mirage of choice as the prize, when in reality there is no choice.

Natural birthing can be very good, or very bad.  It can be neither good nor bad.  It can be both good and bad.  Society will either benefit or pay the price for its reliance on the natural physiological processes in maternity decisions.

Obstetric violence in Australia today?

This is the definition of obstetric violence, presented by UK obstetrician Dr Amali Lokugamage at RCOG World Congress 2014 in India:

"Obstetric violence is the act of disregarding the authority and autonomy that women have over their own sexuality, their bodies, their babies and in their birth experiences.
"It is also the act of disregarding the spontaneity, the positions, the rhythm and the times the labour requires in order to progress normally when there is no need for intervention.
"It is also the act of disregarding the emotional needs of mother and baby throughout the whole [childbearing] process" 
Jesusa Ricoy-Olariaga 2014

Today I want to carefully reflect on a couple of births and other maternity experiences that are very close to home.  
I want to carefully measure the maternity culture that I know and participate in, in and around Melbourne today.  
I want to ask in what way I am contributing to obstetric violence.
I want to seek ways by which adverse aspects of a culture can be changed.

[Please note that names and some of the details in the cases have been changed for anonymity]

Case study 1
Bess was a 30 year-old, carrying her third child, planning homebirth.  I have been her midwife for each of her births, and her first and second baby were born at home in my care.

At about 36 weeks, Bess visited her GP, who looked at her abdomen, and said her baby was too small - growth restricted (IUGR).  The GP quickly arranged an ultrasound scan, which appeared to support the diagnosis, and an appointment for Bess at the tertiary hospital.  The GP spoke to me about her concerns, and I wondered if I had missed something.  

.... fast forward to 38 weeks
Bess was advised to go to hospital to have an induction of labour.  She asked me if I thought her baby was too small.  I did not.  However, I told her "If I'm wrong, and there is a valid reason to get this baby born (as she had been advised by the hospital and the GP), you have more to lose than if I'm right."

... fast forward to a couple of days after the birth of her baby (whose weight was well within the normal range).
Bess told me she did not feel traumatised by the experience: rather, she had faced the challenge head on, and accepted the intervention of induction of labour by artificial rupture of the membranes (ARM).  She had progressed unmedicated, and gave birth without assistance to a healthy baby boy.   When she was told, a couple of hours after the ARM, that it was time to commence IV Syntocinon, she declined and was quite definite about not needing further intervention.  She knew from the tone of the contractions she had experienced that her baby was on his way. 

Obstetric violence monitor (using the above definition):
-1  Bess was pressured by (albeit well-meaning) doctors and maternity care system that introduced fear of harm to her baby, when in fact her pregnancy was progressing normally
-1  Spontaneous onset of labour was denied
+1 Bess was able to decline further intervention after the ARM
+1 Bess considered that, despite experiencing pressure to comply with medical plan, her decisions had been respected, and she felt emotionally supported

Score: Pass - Case 1 is not an example of obstetric violence

Comment:  There are many contributing factors in any decision-making.  The choices that a woman has around her maternity care, and the decisions she makes at any time, are not equally weighted.  The support she has, both professional (eg from a known and trusted midwife) and personal (eg from partner, family, friends) will probably influence outcomes, especially if the decision-making pathway is not clear.

Case Study 2.
Deb was a 38-year old mother who had had two caesarean births, both prior to labour.  Deb wanted a VBA2C (vaginal birth after 2 caesareans) for this birth.  She considered herself well informed about making this plan, and made sure that her written birth plan was included in her hospital record.  She had felt cheated in her previous caesareans, and longed for the spontaneity and bonding between mother and baby in normal birth.

Prior to the onset of labour, Deb had some bright bleeding from her vagina.  She went to the hospital, and had some electronic fetal monitoring and other investigations.  The doctor told Deb that her baby did not seem to be distressed, but that he strongly recommended a repeat caesarean immediately.  Deb explained to him that she would accept a caesarean birth, even though it was not what she had so much hoped and planned for, if the hospital would permit her to keep her baby with her, skin to skin, in the operating theatre, in the recovery room, and when they had returned to the postnatal bed.  The doctor went away to make this arrangement, but was told the hospital did not provide staff for that option: that the baby and his/her father would be taken to the postnatal ward, and the mother reunited with them as soon as she was released from the recovery room.

Deb then refused the emergency caesarean.  Deb's baby was, a couple of days later, still born.

Obstetric violence monitor (using the above definition):
-1  The emotional needs of the mother were disregarded
-1  The emotional needs of the baby, as understood by the mother, were disregarded

Score: FAIL - Case 2 IS an example of obstetric violence

Comment:  Deb's case is clearly complex from an obstetric/medical point of view, and I have cherry picked a few facts in coming to my conclusion that this is an example of obstetric violence.  The hospital disregarded the clearly expressed emotional need of this mother, and used inflexible staffing arrangements as the reason for denying her request.



In what ways am I contributing to obstetric violence?
There is no simple tick-box for obstetric violence in maternity care today.  As evidence emerges about the finely orchestrated hormonal processes in birth and nurture of the new born child, the expectations of women will change.  The providers of professional maternity services must also integrate the contemporary knowledge into our care.




One of my own babies was born with a fractured clavicle, and aspirated mucus, as a result of rather rough handling by the doctor.  The mucus was cleared from her lungs using suction and percussion, and the clavicle healed as expected.  But that child became fearful and anxious when ever her throat became inflamed.  She had a definite memory of pain that had been caused by the failure of my accoucheur to permit me to give birth to her spontaneously.  She had experienced obstetric violence.  I did not feel or know that I had been traumatised - the requirement for me to be lying on my back with my feet in stirrups was standard at that time.

At about that same time, in the 1970s, there were dark and horrible secrets in many facilities where children received care.  Predatory sexual activity, and physical and emotional abuse, were tolerated within the system.  A blind eye was turned.  It has taken several decades for the light of public scrutiny to be directed towards those institutions, and for the people who experienced such abuse as children to have an opportunity to tell what they can of their stories.  

In reviewing birth as I know it in Melbourne today, I want to ensure that I and my colleagues are not tolerating - turning the blind eye - situations of abuse and violence against women and babies.


The maternity system as we know it today does not protect, promote and support natural physiological processes in birth and nurture of babies.  It does not follow the standard, that "In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process." (WHO 1996)

It is possible that future generations will look, aghast, at the way mothers and babies are being treated in the early 21st century, in the same way that we are shocked by revelations of institutional abuse of children in the C20. 

the myth of choice

1983 - working night shifts a the Women's

For a couple of decades now, *choice* has been a pillar of the natural birth movement.

An organisation that I am a member of has the vision, that
"Every woman can choose how, where and with whom she births."

This vision has troubled me for some time.  Today I am attempting to critically explore the notion of choice, and whether it is desirable or imaginable that every woman choose "how, where and with whom she births."


Firstly, some historical considerations:

• The Fortelesa (Fortaleza) Declaration (1985) on appropriate use of technology in birth challenged interventions, from shaves and enemas, to inductions of labour.  This seminal document also declared that "The whole community should be informed about the various procedures in birth care, enable each woman to choose the type of birth care she prefers".  *CHOICE!*
• Changing Childbirth in the UK (early 1990s) declared that women want the 3C's: *choice*, control, and continuity of care.
• A call for *choice* of place of birth (home/hospital) and care provider (such as individual midwife or the maternity system) was clear in the Australian National Maternity Action Plan (2002).

At the same time,  twenty years ago,

• emerging trends in medical research led to the Cochrane Collaboration, defining the reliability of evidence;
•  UNICEF and World Health Organisation introduced the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, with a key document being the Innocenti Declaration  of 1990. 
•  various state and territory governments around this country were conducting broad reviews into birthing services, and producing their reports. (eg Having a baby in Victoria 1990)  These reviews sought consumer comment as well as professional.
•  WHO prepared a series of basic publications on maternity care, including Care in Normal Birth: a practical guide (1996).  This document brought a consensus statement that "In normal birth there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process"

During the past two decades the world has experienced the digital revolution.  Twenty years ago, in 1994, few households had computers: the world wide web and email had only just been invented.   This phenomenon exploded communication and access to reliable information.  Our home went 'on line' in the early 90s, with a (very slow, and unreliable) dial up connection, and we were leaders in the field.   Prior to that, if I needed to send an email, I would ask my husband Noel to send it from his office at the university.  He kept up with the expansion of knowledge via inservice education, and a very helpful secretary, Jean.  He became the 'IT' expert in our home, until our children absorbed the knowledge and quickly spoke the language, as children do.  (but I have digressed from my topic!)

Twenty years ago, professional peer reviewed scientific publications were held in libraries, and accessed by scholars and the intelligencia.  Today, there is an inexhaustible wealth of knowledge at the tip of our fingers, from our computers, tablets, and phones.

Twenty years ago, information about natural childbirth was passed from teacher to student couples in highly motivated childbirth education.  Today women join social media groups where they share everything from their nausea and indigestion, to ultrasound pictures.  These groups, as well as personal blogs and microblogging, have introduced a degree of sharing of opinions, and introspection ('navel gazing'), that would have been unimaginable when person to person communication was limited to a telephone or over the back fence or a tea room at work.

So, what about choice?

In discussing choice in childbirth with colleagues and other interested folk, I have been a little surprised to observe that the woman's right to decline (a treatment/intervention) is often perceived to be the same as a choice in maternity care.  A woman's autonomy in any care situation (whether it's her toe nails or the birth of her child) is often limited to the little word "No!"

By way of example:

Jill is in hospital, in labour with her first baby.  Jill has been told she needs a Caesarean, because she has been labouring without adequate progress, and the doctor is concerned that her labour is obstructed and her baby is becoming distressed.

Jill does not want a caesarean birth, but she has no other options at this time, other than to do nothing, and that may lead to injury/death to her baby.  She has planned for a natural birth, because she believes that's the best way for her and her baby.  Jill has written in her birth plan/preferences document that if she truly needs a caesarean birth, she wants her baby's umbilical cord to remain uncut, and the placenta delivered intact (known as 'lotus' placenta).  She wants her baby to be placed skin to skin on her chest, and to remain with her in the operating room and in recovery so that breastfeeding can be initiated without delay.  She is aware of 'natural' caesarean births, discussed on her social media forum, and likes the idea. 

Jill communicates her wishes to her doctor.  If that doctor has previously supported women's choices in this way, he/she might be willing to agree.  But Jill is a patient in a public hospital.  The doctor who is performing the surgery is being supervised by the consultant obstetrician, and does not feel able to accommodate such a radical plan.  The hospital's policy is to send the baby and the father to the nursery while mother is in recovery, and Jill is told that the hospital is not able to provide suitable staff to accommodate her choices.  Jill has run out of options.  She needs the help of the hospital to get her baby safely born, and she finds to her surprise that the notion of choice doesn't work in this situation.

 Jill thought, prior to coming into labour, that she had chosen:

how: a natural birth 
where: in the local public hospital
with whom: the hospital staff at the time

'how' Jill gives birth is something that cannot be predicted, whether she chooses a private hospital with the most popular obstetrician according to the online rating system, or the guru homebirth midwife who has amazing skill and, according to social media, can do all sorts of things to make birth work as it's supposed to.  The best Jill can find out when she is choosing her care provider is an approximate rate of spontaneous unmedicated births that person reports for woman in their care.

I (frequently) remind women that they have only one choice in childbirth - to do it themselves, or to ask someone else to take over. This is the case, whether it's avoiding induction, having a vaginal breech birth (vbb), a vaginal birth after caesarean (vbac), a physiological 1st, 2nd or 3rd stage. (Haemorrhage and death are also physiological). 

There's an obvious rationale for the skilled midwife in these equations. A primigravida who wants to have a natural unmedicated birth, booked at Caesar's Palace, in the care of a knife happy OB, may have chosen where and with whom she births, but doesn't have much chance of achieving the 'how'.  

Choice is also dependent on money $$$.

The woman who chooses a caesarean for her own (not clinically indicated) reason can get a private doctor to deliver her baby if she can pay the doctor's fee (Medicare + out of pocket) and the hospital fee. But she has very little say about who else is in the room - her partner is likely to be welcome but may be asked to step outside. 

If we have a vision that every woman should be able to choose how - including elective C/S - do we think our public health $ should be supporting that so that women who can't afford the co-payment are also able to rock up and *choose*?
 
I am very concerned about over-spending of health $.  

The only sustainable policy direction in maternity care is to protect, promote and support the natural processes in birth wherever that is reasonable. The workforce needed as experts in achieving this goal is midwives whose duty of care by definition includes "promote normal birth". This does not remove the woman's right to make an informed decision to decline or accept the plan. Medical and surgical options should of course be available to those for whom they are likely to lead to better outcomes, but that's not a matter of the woman's *choice*.


Your comments are welcome.

research

Picture this scene:
Part 1 - Plan A:
A woman having her first baby has laboured spontaneously through the day and the next night.  She has gone to the hospital, and spent a few hours in the water, staying upright and mobile.  At 08:00 hours her cervix has dilated to 4-5cm; her cervix is soft and baby's head is 'high'; and her contractions are less frequent than they were a few hours ago.  She is told that she needs her labour to be augmented: move to 'Plan B'.
[This is a major decision point for a labouring woman.  She can either continue working with her body's natural processes (hormonal, physical, and emotional), or give permission for medical processes to be commenced - all with the goal of a healthy woman giving birth to a healthy baby.]

Part 2 - decision to move to Plan B:
The woman agrees to augmentation of her labour, and after considering pain management options available, requests epidural anaesthesia. 
The hospital staff organise the intervention without delay: and IV line is sited, a pump with a second bag of IV fluids plus oxytocic is prepared, and the anaesthetics doctor introduces herself, asks questions about the woman's health, and explains what she is about to do.  The epidural is commenced, and after a couple of contractions the woman feels less pain and lies down quietly in the bed.  The electronic fetal monitor provides continuous information about the baby's condition, as well as charting the presence of uterine contractions.  After the doctor has checked the level of the anaesthetic block with ice, she goes out of the room.

Part 3 - invitation to participate in research
[and the reason for this post]
Soon after, a person comes into the room and introduces herself as a research midwife. She asks the woman if she would agree to being enlisted in a research trial.  She explains that the purpose of the trial is to reduce unnecessary caesareans.
She explains that, in this trial women who have already elected to have an epidural would be randomly allocated, if the question of whether or not to have a caesarean birth, to a particular test of the baby's blood (lactate), which would be accessed vaginally via a scratch on the baby's scalp.
[I won't tell you what the woman chose.  How would you respond?]

Comments on this research from a scientific, professional point of view:

1. Research is an integral part of professional health care today.  I accept that.  
2. The design of a particular trial - in this case to enlist women in labour after they have had an epidural, means that those who have spontaneous uncomplicated labours and births, or those who have elective surgical births, do not even think about the issues such as a decision to go to caesarean, or to continue in labour.
3. This research seeks to look at those for whom the intervention (intrapartum fetal blood sampling for lactate measurement as an assessment of fetal wellbeing, in the presence of non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace) could be critical in making a decision about the way a baby will be born.
4. The randomisation of all research subjects (labouring women who agree to being enlisted in the trial) into treatment or control groups seeks to prevent bias in decision-making. 
5. Research on human subjects can only be approved if the researchers are able to demonstrate the value of the information to the relevant discipline(s), and strategies that prevent harm (to the mother and/or baby, in this case). 
    
   Comments on this research from a woman's point of view:
6. If I agree to what you are asking, and my baby becomes distressed, do I have any say in what is done?  No - the decision is made according to the randomisation.
7. I feel exhausted after a couple of nights without sleep, and now I am being asked to make a decision about something which I have never thought about before.  How can I know what's going to be best for me and my baby?  That's why the research is being done.  Noone knows what is the best way to proceed.  
8. If I say no, I don't want to be in the research, and a decision needs to be made about whether or not to do a caesarean, how will that happen?   ...

I often argue that there is really only one real choice in childbirth: to do it yourself (Plan A), or to ask someone else to do it for you (Plan B). 

There are no guarantees in birth.  It's a journey, and decisions must be made as events unfold.

Midwives are bound, by definition, to promote normal birth.  A woman whose labour proceeds without complication is in the optimal position to give birth spontaneously, and with good outcomes for herself and her baby.   There will never be a safer or more appropriate way for these women to give birth, than to do it themselves.

Any intervention brings potential benefits and risks.  Augmentation of labour with oxytocic may, in many cases, bring about a more coordinated labour than what was being experienced before the augmentation, and a happy, healthy mother with a happy healthy baby in her arms a few hours later.  However, augmentation of labour can also lead to hyper-stimulation of the uterus, a distressed hypoxic baby, an emergency surgical birth, haemorrhage, ...

When a woman needs/chooses to move from Plan A to Plan B, the presence of a known and skilled midwife who can reassure her, and at times offer guidance, is essential.  Midwifery is not limited to promoting normal birth.  It's about being 'with woman' - a midwife with a woman, in a professional arrangement that enables sharing of information and support that is uniquely tailored to that woman and her baby.  The journey that leads to the birth is not predictable, but each woman's decision making is her own, without pressure or coercion.  This is, in my opinion, the pathway to safe birth through accessing appropriate interventions when indicated.

home midwifery in the (legal) spotlight

Melbourne in mid-winter is grey and damp and cold.  The tall concrete buildings block the weak, angled sunlight.

This week I have sat for two days in a tired meeting room in a city hotel that has passed its prime:  not old enough to be interesting; not fresh enough to be attractive.  The plate glass windows in the conference room revealed nothing more than the boarded up windows of a derelict multi-storey building on the other side of Little Collins Street.

The conference provided opportunities for comment on homebirth, and particularly homebirths that have gone wrong.  Lawyers presented papers on topics such as 'Managing the Risks inherent in Women's Choice in Obstetric Care', and 'Practical Obstetric Risk Management: defending your care'.  It sounded simple.    

Human rights in the childbirth process were eloquently discussed by other lawyers who drew from both their knowledge of the law and their personal experience.

'Open Disclosure' was discussed by two speakers, and I concluded that, in order to 'defend' oneself against potential legal or disciplinary action, an adverse event in a hospital is met with what seems to me to be a charade called 'open disclosure' that is not very open, and that doesn't disclose much.  Don't be too literal about the meaning of 'open' or the meaning of 'disclosure'.  A curious conundrum! 

A Coroner delivered, with barely an inflection in his voice, a keynote address on 'Lessons to be learned from the Home Birth Cases in Vic and SA.'  In this presentation, seven cases were reviewed, the common thread being that they had been planned homebirths, with either a registered midwife or a previously registered midwife in attendance.  When considering risk factors such as previous big babies, previous caesarean births, and a twin pregnancy, the conclusion was that most of these cases should not have been planned homebirths; that the midwife had a duty of care to transfer care to an obstetric unit.

In 6/7 cases, the baby deaths were declared by the Coroner to have been potentially preventable.  The Coroner does not attempt to apportion blame, merely to discover the facts, and to make recommendations.  The Coroner's filtering of the information presented at the inquest failed to notice any possible reason that a woman might have had for trying to avoid a medically managed birth; any mention of her desire to hold her baby to her breast within moments of birth; or even any recommendations that maternity hospitals provide pathways for women who want to have a known and trusted midwife providing continuity of care within the hospital.

I want to be perfectly clear here: I cannot speak for either the mothers or the midwives.  I am merely an onlooker, and I have read the Coroner's findings that have been put in the public domain.  I am also shocked at the tragedies that precipitated these cases into the Coroner's court.

The points made by those who spoke about women's rights were either ignored or not understood by those who spoke from the professional duty of care perspective.   The fact is that pregnant women have personal autonomy; that decisions do not have to be approved by, or even understood by, those who attend for birth.

***
The presentation following that by the Coroner was from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection Unit.  I noted down a point that was briefly made, without any further comment, that, of the approximately 900 perinatal deaths in this State annually, 63% are found to have potentially avoidable factors.

The loss of a baby's life is, thankfully, uncommon in our world.  Yet it is one of the most heart-wrenching experiences imaginable.  Whether the death is linked to homebirth or not, everyone needs to take what lessons are available from the facts of the case.  I ask myself, what lessons have I taken from these seven tragic cases?

***
I believe the huge challenge that lies ahead for midwives and the whole maternity world is to find a balance between providing advice and care that protects the wellbeing and safety of the mother and child, while at the same time respecting the woman's decisions and choices.  This is not going to be easy.  It is an ongoing process, and demands trust and commitment between the midwife-woman, and the midwife-obstetric/hospital system. The paternalistic dictatorial style of hospitals has, in many instances, demanded submission to hospital policies and processes. This needs to change. The misunderstanding of risk in maternity care, as was clearly demonstrated in the cases reviewed, will likely continue to open the door for self-educated, internet-researched women to make the choice of birthing without a midwife in attendance.  This needs to change, to include intelligent dialogue and planning that is specific to the individual woman/pregnancy.  The misunderstood partnership between woman and midwife, as was also clearly demonstrated in the cases reviewed, may from time to time place unreasonable weight on the woman's choice, and devalue the midwife's skill and knowledge.  This also needs to change, enabling midwives to practise more autonomously and accountably.

Women who engage a midwife to attend them at home for birth, having an identified risk profile, such as a previous caesarean, a previous post partum haemorrhage, or multiparity, or any of the other features that are classified as risk - these women, and these midwives, need support rather than being driven underground.  The midwife who is ready to go with her client to the hospital, and continue supporting the woman's informed decision-making process within the hospital, will accompany that woman to the best birth that she can have.

And, we only want the best.



Your comments are welcome.

ps - this link to the story of a maternal death is, sadly, what we will see more of if we don't maintain a midwifery profession that is 'with woman'.

more about choice, decisions, and 'the birth you really wanted'

From time to time, as I read social media sites used by mothers, midwives, and others interested in the whole childbirth package, I come across messages such as:
"I was prevented by ... from having the birth I really wanted," or
"I'm so glad you got the birth you really wanted."

Women who feel physically and emotionally traumatised by experiences in previous births declare that they won't go near the hospital, because that's where and why it all happened the way it did.

More and more women are telling me that they are planning to give birth at home without professional support for various reasons - can't afford a midwife; no midwife or publicly funded homebirth program in the area; too 'high risk' for the midwives in the area ...  This really concerns me - it's scary!

Homebirth has resurfaced in the local media recently, with an article by Sydney midwives, Karol Petrovska and Caroline Homer, Beyond the “homebirth horror” headlines: some wider questions for the health system (and media).  This article was responding to a 'news' article on the mamamia blog, titled 'A hospital birth would have saved Kate's baby'.

The Coroner had identified internet-based research of risk as being central to the mother's choices and decisions in this instance
‘‘[This is] an example of the danger of untrained users utilising raw data or statistical information to support a premise as to risk, without knowledge and understanding of the complex myriad of factors relevant to the risk’’.[report]

The Coroner also found that delay in transferring care from home to hospital, after it should have been apparent to the midwives that Kate's baby was in distress, contributed to the death.

Midwives hold to a theory of 'partnership' with each woman in our care.  The midwife-woman partnership has been incorporated into the ICM International Definition of the Midwife.
This partnership, when correctly applied, places the woman at the centre of all decisions, with the intention of protecting the wellbeing and safety of mother and child.

Today I would like to briefly comment on the midwife-woman partnership, especially as it applies to choice, decisions, and achieving 'the birth you really wanted'.


Independent midwives, employed directly by women for birth in their own home, are in a privileged position because we are able to apply midwifery skill, knowledge and expertise directly without being hampered by the levels of bureaucracy and policy and protocol that exist in hospitals.  Women who are low risk and who plan to give birth at home with a midwife in attendance are in the most optimal maternity care situation that exists today.  A large study (de Jonge et al 2013) comparing maternal outcomes from (low risk) homebirths with a comparable group of (low risk) women giving birth in hospitals in the Netherlands concluded that:

"Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system."

Independent midwives practising in Australia are often asked to attend births that are not in the low risk category.  Women who are older, fatter, who have had a lot of children, or caesarean births, or who have been traumatised in previous births often seek a midwife who will plan homebirth with them, particularly those who want to avoid the hospital.

There is no calculation table that lists risk factors against chance of having an uncomplicated vaginal birth - and if there were, I doubt that it would be of any use.  The current 'odds' for serious adverse complications (such as death of a baby, or serious maternal haemorrhage from uterine rupture) in vbac is estimated at 1:2000. [for more on safety of vbac, click here]   There is no comparable statistical estimate that ordinary people face in daily living.  People who bet on horse races may have some understanding.  1:2000 seems remote, and meaningless.

A more useful guidance would be to define at what point in time does actual risk, rather than theoretical risk, escalate.  This appears to me to be a question that was not thoroughly explored in the tragic case referenced at the beginning of this post. This clinical judgment is within the scope of a midwife's practice.  Spontaneous, unassisted birth becomes less safe if there is anything that indicates compromise of the mother or the fetus: complications of pregnancy, including raised blood pressure or impaired glucose tolerance; prolonged pregnancy; antepartum haemorrhage. Complications of labour including poor progress over time; and fetal heart rate decelerations or other abnormalities.

When 'the birth I really wanted' focuses on place of birth, or even on the process of birth, a significant number of mothers are going to be disappointed.  A midwife cannot become so committed to homebirth, or natural birth, that she forgets to keep a keen, critical eye on what is actually happening.  There are a couple of significant hurdles that a woman needs to get over before the spontaneous, unmedicated homebirth can even be considered. These are:

• spontaneous onset of labour, and
• spontaneous progress in labour - to the point where natural expulsive forces can be applied.

As it happens, there is no safer way for most babies to be born, than for the mother to do it herself - spontaneously - irrespective of place.  Not with herbal stimulants or acupuncture or coaching or hypno/calm birth education or pelvic manipulation or olive oil being rubbed into the perineum, or the best midwife in town.  Spontaneous is from within.  As labour progresses, a mother's capacity to judge progress and safety decreases, as her calculating, educated mind closes down to permit intuitive activity from deeper brain structures.  As this altered state of consciousness becomes strong, her midwife maintains a skilled, watchful vigil.  A mother cannot do this for herself.

The midwife's role is clear: if the mother and baby are coping well with spontaneous labour, no interruption or interference is permitted.  On the other hand, if warning signs are present, the midwife's ongoing clinical judgment and assessment throughout the birthing process protect the interests of her clients, both mother and baby.

You might have a birth plan for 'the birth I really want'.  Please check that birth plan, and check with your midwife, to ensure clear decision points.  While you are able to spontaneously progress through labour and birth, the physiological process is magnificent.  But, if there is a valid reason to interrupt the natural process, be ready to get the best birth possible, using the best and most timely intervention that is accessible at the time.

'The birth I really wanted' is above all, one that protects my baby and myself.   

Thankyou for your comments.

Informed or mistaken?

Informed choice
Informed decision
Informed refusal
...

In my world the adjective 'informed' is often used in an attempt to declare that the person who is making the 'informed' choice/decision/refusal/whatever is intelligent, and has carefully considered options.  My question is, often, who's kidding whom?


A woman who wants to make an informed choice about who provides her care, and other aspects of the model of care, can only choose from what is available to her. 

A woman who wants to make an informed decision, particularly about an aspect of natural, physiological birth, may say she does not want to be treated as the next number on the production line.  She does not want standard care, whatever that is.  She wants to be treated as an individual.

A woman who wants to make an informed refusal of, for example, pre-labour caesarean surgery for a baby presenting breech, can find herself up against a system that does not support or understand her intentions.


In the often complex and demanding journey that a woman takes in giving birth to and nurturing her baby, the information available can be only marginally relevant to the individual situation: the choices and decisions can appear as shades of grey, rather than good and bad.  The constant juggling of the interests of the woman and her child, within the multiple contexts of a marriage, a family, a maternity service, and a community, can change the options for decisions in a moment.  In fact, a woman who considers herself well informed, and who is intentional about proceeding with an unmedicated physiological birth, has very little choice when some person with authority says "We need to get your baby delivered now."  A woman in labour who is confronted with even the suggestion that her baby's condition may be compromised, without whatever intervention is being offered, can suddenly find herself submitting to something that she would otherwise have avoided.


Health care, and especially maternity care, has changed in recent decades, from a "doctor-knows-best"-no-discussion model, with a hierarchical knowledge-based framework, to a system that attempts to include and respect the wishes and values of the patient/client.   This is, I believe, to be encouraged in principle.  But, in practice, I am often frustrated at the absence of an appropriate conversation about decisions or choices that need to be made.


At present the Melbourne Coroner's office is inquiring into the circumstances around the death of a baby whose mother intended to give birth at home.  Newspaper reports of this inquiry highlight the fact that the mother had refused caesarean surgery a few days before she came into labour.  In a news paper report of the proceedings, a medical specialist is reported to have said that: 

the "inadequate, incomplete and at times misleading information" available, particularly on the internet, made it difficult for women to make an informed decision about their birth plans.

There is little doubt from the reports that the mother believed she had made informed decisions.  Yet, in the tragedy of loss of the life of a baby, it's easy to argue that there were seriously mistaken decisions that led to the events of that day.


Women who have had previous caesarean birth(s) may make choices and decisions about their carers, and their planned place of birth, early in their pregnancies.  By way of contrast, women who find that their baby is presenting breech as they approach Term are suddenly confronted with a bewildering array of decisions.  As they obtain information they become aware that there is no right way (eg elective caesarean) and wrong way.  There is increased risk in breech birth, regardless of the actual method of birth. At each decision point, they can feel exposed and uninformed, even misled - but decisions must be made and there is no turning back.  Each decision places the participants in a new context, which may lead to more decision-making.

A woman who had planned to give birth naturally in a hospital birth centre found that her baby was frank breech a couple of days after her due date.  The special set of decision points that she encountered after the breech diagnosis were:

• attempt external cephalic version (ECV): the decision was made on Saturday that this baby was not suitable for ECV, and the mother was informed that she would be booked for a Caesarean on Monday.
• spontaneous onset of labour: Mother laboured at home Sunday night, and called her midwife for support around midnight.
• progress in labour: After several hours of established labour, the mother's cervix was dilated 6-7cm, and the presenting part was high.  The decision was made to go to hospital.  Labour continued strongly.  The obstetrics registrar at the hospital agreed that progress was good, but advised a caesarean birth.  The mother declined, and stated that she was intending to give birth vaginally.  All maternal and fetal observations were within normal range.
• review of progress in labour: After several more hours of labour, full dilation of the cervix was confirmed, but no progress of the presenting part.  Once again the mother was advised that she needed caesarean surgery, and this time she agreed.  Her baby was born in good condition, and the hospital staff facilitated early skin to skin contact and breastfeeding in the recovery area of the OT. 

In discussion a week after the birth, this woman commented to her midwife, "You know, it's a totally different outcome, having a caesarean birth after labour, knowing that I couldn't do any more myself, than if I had agreed to it the first or second time I was told I needed it."

The midwife agreed.  The decision making process included an ongoing review of the progress of mother and baby through uncharted terrain.  The decisions were made on the best information available.  There was ultimately only one *choice* - for the woman to do it herself, or not.  This is the only informed birth plan a woman can make, and follow through with.


related posts:
decision making for breech
breech vaginal birth
messages about breech births

TWO YEARS LATER

It's two years since November 2010, when the Australian government announced sweeping maternity reforms that promised to give women a better deal in their maternity care.  The Report of the Maternity Services Review acknowledged that:

"... in light of current evidence and consumer preference, there is a case to expand the range of models of maternity care."

There are several posts on this site addressing the 2008 Review, and the subsequent recommendations and legislative reform.  For example, go to March 2010 Maternity Reform Hijacked, parts 1, 2, and 3; and the September 2010 one on Medicare funding: carrot or poisoned chalice.

Many midwives around this country have accepted the challenge, jumped through all the hoops, and achieved notation as Medicare eligible.  Our invoices for antenatal and postnatal midwifery services include the Medicare item numbers, and women are able to obtain Medicare rebate.  Some midwives are offering certain services at the Medicare bulk bill rate, which involves the swipe of a Medicare card in a little EFTPOS machine; the entry of a few details using the numbers on the machine, and the bulk bill payment shows up in the midwife's nominated bank account the next day.

The other major change that was brought about by the reform package was the ability of midwives to prescribe certain scheduled drugs: drugs that at present only a doctor can prescribe.  The first group of students in the Graduate Diploma of Midwifery from Flinders University are soon to receive their final scores for the Pharmacology exam paper, which we sat last Thursday, and which accounts for 50% of the mark.  For my journal as a student, go to this and subsequent entries.

On the positive side of the 2-year report of the 'reform' process we can record Medicare.  For example, Item number 82115, with a scheduled fee of $313.05 is

Professional attendance by a participating midwife, lasting at least 90 minutes, for assessment and preparation of a maternity care plan for a patient whose pregnancy has progressed beyond 20 weeks,...

[Health Insurance (Midwife and Nurse Practitioner) Determination 2011 - F2011L02162

]
The Medicare statistics website reveals that, in the 12 months October 2011 to October 2012, a total of $325,005 was paid out by Medicare for Item #82115.
The breakdown of amounts is (in order of magnitude):

Queensland $114,010
Victoria $63,944
South Australia $55,081
NSW $44,308
WA $40,720
ACT $3,241
Tas $2,912
NT $788

This is only one item number.  Other reports can be generated at the Medicare Item Reports site.


On the negative side of the leger, there are several points to note.  This list is my personal one, made from my experience.

1. Medicare Collaboration:
   It is becoming increasingly difficult in some areas to obtain collaborative arrangements that meet the requirements for midwives to provide Medicare rebates for women.
   
2. Access to practising in public hospitals: Despite expert multi-disciplinary committees and meetings and reports, it's clear that public hospitals do not welcome the idea of midwives practising privately within their confines.
3.  Access to practising in private hospitals: Are you kidding?
4. The homebirth problem: Midwives attending homebirth are doing so without indemnity insurance.  Surely the time of birth, regardless of place, is the very time when insurance may be useful. 
5. The future of private midwifery practice: I believe it is becoming more difficult over time to sustain private midwifery practice.  I believe some (probably well meaning) captains of the industry have an agenda to rid our society of homebirth.

Two years on, and the private midwifery profession is more restricted than it was previously.  There has been no expansion of the "range of models of maternity care" - the stated purpose of the maternity reforms.

*****

In conclusion, today I sat in a court room in Melbourne, as the case of complaints into the professional practice of a colleague was commenced by AHPRA.  The law under which the complaints are being heard prevents publication of the name of the complainant, and in this case the names of the women who employed the midwife have also been suppressed.

The legal inquiries and arguments will proceed over the coming days, and the midwife will eventually be told what findings have been made against her, and what conditions may be placed on her ability to practise her profession. [see MidwivesVictoria]

The issue that will, I believe, be at the centre of the case is whether a midwife is *allowed* to attend birth at home for a woman who has recognised risk factors.  The other side of that same coin is whether a woman who has risk factors, such as post maturity, previous caesarean, or twins, is *allowed* to give birth at home.  I have written *allowed* this way to highlight the statutory process that is being employed here, using the regulation of the profession to either permit or prevent certain activities, that are seen - rightly or wrongly - as 'operating on the fringe'.

I am not able in a blog to explore these issues fully.  I would like to make a clear statement that I consider the duty of care of the midwife who agrees to provide primary care for any woman, regardless of the risk status of that woman, to include the promotion of the wellbeing of mother and child, and where reasonable, the protection of spontaneous natural life processes.  The woman is the one who has the final choice on accepting or refusing any intervention.

The midwife practising privately brings skill and knowledge that may not be accessible or reliable in the hospital, where ad-hoc staffing issues often take precedence over the interests of the individual woman.

What progress have we made in the two years since the Maternity reform package was enacted?  Very little.  The only place most midwives are able to practise is the home.  The only way a woman can rely on a midwife is if she plans home birth.